Masud, Gage, et al. Deliver a Bounty of 9/11 Facts in the Catskills

Evidence of the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center and other crimes on 9/11/01 reached a crowd of about fifty enthusiastic listeners in Livingston Manor, NY, thanks to event host and author Sander Hicks. The event was held at King's Catering Hall on Old Route 17 from 1-5 pm on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Topics at the event ranged widely, covering different aspects of the Truth movement, including social activism and even the formation of a new 'Truth' political party. But, certainly, the most important evidence of the 9/11 crimes was presented at the event by the well-researched heavy-hitters Masud and Gage. This article will focus on that evidence.

Masud 'Unveils' the Evidence that AA Flight 77 Did Not Strike the Pentagon on 9/11/01

In a concise, yet powerful, speech, Masud opened the conference with strong evidence that American Airlines Flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon, as alleged by the White House and media on 9/11/01. Masud, author of several books, including 9/11 Unveiled, made his point succinctly by quoting evidence available from the public record, including such sources as the CNN television broadcast of Jamie McIntyre reporting live from the Pentagon on 9/11/01, in which Mr. McIntyre reported:

"From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere NEAR the Pentagon [emphasis McIntyre's]... The only pieces you can see that are left are small enough that you can pick them up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse."

Masud pointed out many more problems with the claim that AA Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Moreover, even without the aid of his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Masud made his points plainly. Masud explained that, had the plane come in at an angle, as alleged, as soon as the nearest wing would have touched the Pentagon, the plane would have begun to rotate. Thus, the damage to the Pentagon should have been curved, not following the straight-line path into the building that was observed. Moreover, the in-flight maneouvers were impossible, Masud said, since data from the alleged flight recorder indicated that the aircraft would have been subjected to an acceleration of 33 "g's", enough to rip apart any type of aircraft in mid-air, whether civilian or military, Masud said. Additional problems with the official account, cited by Masud, included reliable eye-witness testimony from police officers who sighted the airliner flying north of the CITCO gas station, which contradicts the alleged flight path, south of the gas station, given in the official account.

Gage Turns Up the Heat of Controlled Demolition Case with Hard Evidence: Freefall, Thermite, Molten Metal, and More

The day's best presentation was saved nearly for last, and the Gage delivered the evidence of controlled demolition with the precision and expertise typical of an architect with more than twenty years of experience.

With the aid of his multi-media Powerpoint presentation, Gage delivered an approximately thirty-minute version of his now-famous Blueprint for Truth presentation. With his usual precision, Gage outlines the characterisics of controlled demolitions, and using direct video evidence from the World Trade Center destruction and witness testimony from that same day, Gage clearly finds all of these characteristics present in the destruction of all three buildings on 9/11/01. Gage notes that fire cannot cause any of these characteristics - not one - yet we find all of them in all three destructions of that day.

Gage presented visual examples of buildings falling over due to natural causes such as earthquakes or man-made causes such as unsuccessful controlled demolitions, with the audience laughing at scenes of the latter. Gage points out that in such cases, the buildings generally remain mostly intact. Whereas, on 9/11/01, the entire buildings were turned into dust and powder. The audience felt a chill as Gage informed them that the massive cloud of powder that drifted over the Hudson River on 9/11/01 contained the powdered material from all of the concrete building floors and metal shavings from all of the metal filing cabinets in all three of the destroyed buildings.

Gage showed images of the now-famous red-gray nano-thermite chips and the nano-sized iron spheres discovered in the dust of all three WTC destructions by physicist Dr. Steven Jones. Gage explained that the red-gray chips are unexploded nano-thermite, and the nano-sized iron spheres are a by-product of the thermite reaction. Gage explained that when Jones heated up the red-gray chips from the WTC dust to 400 degrees, they exploded and left in their places the iron nano-spheres, which were identical to the other ones found in the WTC dust. Gage told the audience that this evidence is proof of controlled demolitions. Gage told the audience that after one year, Dr. Jones' scientific paper has yet to be challenged by anyone in the scientific community.

Rudkowski: Raising Money for the Victims of 9/11 Crimes

Presenting examples, not figures, Luke Rudkowski told the audience that his world-wide organization, We Are Change, has helped to raise money to aid New Yorkers who are in financial trouble as a direct result of breathing the air at the crime scene after being told by NYC officials that the air was "safe to breath." When the government would not help them, We Are Change did, he said. Rudkowski gave, as examples, helping a 9/11 crime victim pay for medicine for 9/11 crime-induced ailments; or, helping another victim to pay his/her rent after being made unable to work by 9/11 crime-related illness.

Additionally, and toward that same end, Mr. Rudkowski announced that We Are Change will be holding four days of events in NYC on the ninth anniversary of 9/11 this September, with all of the proceeds to benefit non-profit organizations to help the victims of 9/11 crimes. Rudkowski said everyone is invited to come to New York City for the four days of events next month.

Hicks: NYC CAN Injustice, Treason, and the Formation of a new Truth Party

Event host Sander Hicks continued the theme of dubious court-room decisions, following Nick Bryant's story of an alleged CIA child-abuse racket and an alleged corrupt trial and cover-up with his own remarks regarding the judge's decision to rule against the NYC CAN petition to put a new 9/11 investigation on the ballot in NYC. Despite getting 80,000 legitimate signatures, the judge ruled against NYC CAN. Hicks recommended that people download and read the .PDF file of the judge's decision, in which the judge attempts to explain his reasons for disallowing the putting of the NYC CAN question on the ballot.

Hicks also advised the 9/11 Truth movement to "name the crime, and the crime is treason." Hicks presented, as one definition of the crime, one who "causes war or continues war." He also advised citizens to "look at the patsies," and their relationships to the CIA, for guidance in the directing of citizen inquiries into 9/11 crimes.

Hicks also spoke about the formation of his new Truth party. For more information about the Truth party, readers are referred to Hick's website, SanderHicks.com.

Honorable Mention: Bryant's 'Franklin Scandal'

Honorable mention among presenters goes to Nick Bryant for his outstanding presentation based upon the research he did for his book, The Franklin Scandal. To call his work "thoroughly researched" would be a massive understatement. Bryant's presentation on the Franklin Scandal could easily be the keynote speech for a different conference on a subject other than the crimes of 9/11.

Previews

We Are Change founder Luke Rudkowski showed a video trailer of his upcoming documentary film, entitled, "Truth to Power"

While displaying, with his projector, an image of three light beams in the night-time NYC sky, Richard Gage said, "Look into the New York sky on the evening of the 10th." What does Mr. Gage mean? Guess we'll all have to wait and see!

NB book is excellent. I would like to know more about how his material fits into this conference. IMO what Nick Bryant has uncovered could explain how cadres of operatives could be created but I'd like to know what was said.

I was there, and I found that The Truth Gathering was excellent for several reasons, at least for me, since I am still relatively new to the community. The presentations were very good, but I feel obligated to point out the obvious weakness of Musad's general case, and in particular, this line jumps out as obviously wrong, quoting from the review:

"Masud explained that, had the plane come in at an angle, as alleged, as soon as the nearest wing would have touched the Pentagon, the plane would have begun to rotate."

I didn't get a chance to set him straight on this, unfortunately, but I hope to catch the attention of a few readers who might otherwise agree with him. I believe he honestly believes this argument, just as I believe other people who hold incorrect or weak positions also usually believe the story they have adopted, even when it is the official lies. They each believe they have understood some of the truth, and it is often very difficult to shake loose someone's sense of truth enough for them to examine it closely and objectively.

Momentum is the physical concept we are dealing with here. The plane, moving as fast as it was, had enormous momentum, which tends to keep the mass moving straight ahead even when any part of the plane meets an obstacle. So when the right tip of the wing first impacts the Pentagon wall, we have to compare the resistance of the wall with the strength of the wing material resisting being ripped apart, and the resistance of the wing being ripped from the fuselage, and the resistance of the moving mass from changing direction at all.

In fact, the structural resistance of the wall and the strength of the plane material were much less than the force generated by the enormous momentum. This is why the Sandia Labs jet crash video is relevant here, showing a jet being completely obliterated in its collision with a much thicker reinforced concrete wall. This is how a high velocity stream of water can cut through a steel plate. This is how the passenger in a car who is not wearing a seat belt in a high speed collision can be thrown through the windshield (at least part of his body).

If the plane were moving slowly enough, then you *might* have a case for the plane being forced to rotate as opposed to ripping the wing apart, but I think the velocity would have to be close to zero for that to happen. I hope this is making intuitive sense, so we can avoid getting into the numbers.

This Truth Gathering had people in attendance who believe all manner of mutually contradictory ideas about the events of 9/11, including beliefs in the incorrect (in my confident opinion) ideas of the pentagon plane flyover, the natural collapse of the twin towers (after initiation by unnatural means), and smidgens of video fakery. We also covered the entire spectrum of political, economic, and religious philosophy. I found it most interesting that we could gather in the common search for truth and discuss things with integrity and mutual respect.

If you are ALLEGING that Enver Masud's facts are incorrect then you must PROVE IT. Otherwise, it is only your own opinion that Enver Masud is wrong, and your opinion does nothing to disprove Enver Masud.

You are right that my allegation needs to be proved. But so also does Masud's argument need proof. I hope you are not claiming he doesn't need to prove his argument.

He gave no more than a weak intuitive argument, and I gave a much stronger hopefully more intuitive counter-argument. Correct intuition comes first in understanding the truth, i believe. Occasionally there are facts which are either non-intuitive or counter-intuitive and then we have to rely on careful experimentation and a deeper analysis to understand what is really going on.

In this situation, I believe most people do have a good and correct intuition regarding momentum. The problem is that if you imagine an impact in slow motion in order to try to understand it, you will get exactly the wrong understanding. If you do that, then the slow motion is exactly contrary to what you need to do to understand what a high speed impact is like. In a very slow impact, the mass hardly matters and the dominating force is the structural forces that hold the mass together. In a high speed impact, it is the opposite: the mass is all that matters and the structural forces pale to insignificance.

While I am at it (I've got some momentum going here) I'll extend this response to deal with another related problem that Masud raised. A substantial number of truthers buy into the argument that the lack of large debris on the Pentagon lawn means there could not have been a commercial-sized plane involved in the impact.

Even if you have seen the Sandia F-4 jet impact test before, please take another look. Here is the best video showing the impact from several directions (but skip past the slow part to about 3:30) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWL1hwPQFoo Note the lack of any sizable debris, the almost complete obliteration of the jet, and the spray of fine particles radially at the point of impact.

How about a pumpkin cutting through a car at high speed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RryMwlrA4G8&list=QL&playnext=2 The actual speed appears to be debatable, but the point is that speed rules. The whole point of cannons and guns is to create high-speed projectiles. Since momentum is the product of mass and velocity, it also helps if the projectile has more mass as well as more velocity.

Here is another video I hadn't seen before: Mythbusters - pancaked car showing obliteration of the car, and the obliteration device.

To what degree this supports the explosive demolition hypothesis I am unsure, however, it bears mentioning.

Moreover, what if the plane had begun to rotate? What's next? Masud should write a paper and submit it to the Journal Of Nine-Eleven Studies and test if it passes peer review. We shall see. I think he won't. Masud is essentially a flyover theorist.

Actually, the tilting of the top of the South Tower should have continued tilting even without the fulcrum (the point of rotation somewhere in the core columns). The top of the tower was moving at a certain velocity sideways (because of the rotation), and because it was moving, that velocity will continue unless there is a force to counter it.

When the supporting fulcrum gave way, that should just allow the addition of a vertical motion in response to the force of gravity straight down. But this vertical motion by itself does not stop the rotation and the horizontal motion at the top that is already underway. The two motions would instead add together, and we should expect to see the top continuing to fall over, mostly intact except at the point of collision below.

But what we actually saw was the upper structure coming apart at many points, and because there was nothing much holding the parts together, they then started acting independently. The overall rotation of the top block should subdivide into rotations of each smaller part, and each part starts out with whatever velocity it had before the breakup. This means we should still see smaller parts falling more or less together over the side and down.

But no! What we actually saw was lots of relatively small pieces of debris falling through the exploding clouds of dust. Yes, there were a few larger chunks, but nothing like what we should expect with a natural collapse.

This initial tilt of the south tower was a huge accident - not part of the plan, perhaps prompted by the arrival of firefighters who were reporting the relative lack of fires. As soon as it started, it was still out of balance, and so the tilt got a lot of momentum in a short time. They needed to demolish the entire top quickly, to maintain the illusion of a naturally occurring collapse.

"The rapid downward acceleration indicates that the fulcrum has been destroyed."

And:

"Given the apparent absence of any torque to counter the rotation of the block, the slowing of its rotation can only be explained by the breakup of most of the block, which would have destroyed its moment of inertia. "

I understand what Hoffman is saying, but I'm still reading up on angular momentum to wrap my head around this.

Essentially, he's saying that the slowing of the block's rotation indicates that it was breaking up, which in turn indicates it cannot act as a solid, rigid "hammer" to crush the lower block. (Exit Bazant) However, then I have to think about Tony Szamboti's remarks about "mass participation" and whether or not loosely associated rubble can act as a piledriver, especially when that rubble is shedded on all sides of the tower. Furthermore, Frank Greening's "box cars" or "billiard balls" analogy comes to mind, where new "upper blocks" continuously come into being as momentum is passed from top to bottom floors. All of this possibly obscured by a peeling (and lagging) facade. Make sense? A lot to think about...We need an accurate physics simulation.

What I observed at the conference was simply Masud quoting facts right out of the public record. I don't recall him "theorizing" as to what might have happened. I think his point was simply that the evidence in the public record does not support the allegation that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. To me, Masud was simply saying, "Here are the facts. Decide for yourself." Really, I don't see how any man's speech could be more sensible than that!

I see here, above, that some may have liked his talk and others may not have, but, his facts are right out of the public record so there's really nothing to challenge there unless you're challenging the public record itself... not to say that's impossible... just that such a challenge has quite literally nothing to do with Envery Masud since Enver Masud didn't write the public record!!!